PERBEDAAN KUALITAS SCAR LUKA OPERASI ANTARA INFILTRASI ADRENALIN DAN LIDOKAIN + ADRENALIN PADA PASIEN LABIOCHISIS UNILATERAL KOMPLIT PASCA LABIOPLASTY MILLARD BERDASARKAN VANCOUVER SCAR SCALE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DIFFERENCES OF QUALITY SURGICAL WOUND SCAR BETWEEN ADRENALINE INFILTRATION AND LIDOCAINE + ADRENALINE INFILTRATION IN COMPLETE UNILATERAL LABIOCHISIS POST MILLARD LABIOPLASTY PATIENT BASED ON VANCOUVER SCAR SCALE Heri Purnomo*, Amru Sungkar**, Untung Alifianto*** Abstract Background:Scar post Millard labioplasty in complete unilateral labiochisis patient gave objectively and subjectively problem of the patient. Lidocaine + adrenaline infiltration as homeostasis in surgery technique allegedly to be one cause of the poor scar quality. In theory lidocaine infiltration willdecrease pain intensity so that β-endorphin which secreted by pituitary gland decreases, macrofag activity increases, cytokines activity released by macrofag such as TNF α , IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, TGF β also increase, whereas TGF β has chemotaxis and mitogenic effect in fibroblast that will increase collagen synthesis, but there is TGF β secreted in latent molecule form that still need process to be active and TGF-β1 upregulation was not always enough to be hypertrophy scar, so study is needed to know lidocaine effect towards post surgery scar quality. Method :This study was post test only control group design study. Study sample were 10 people divided into 2 groups, group A consists of Millard labioplasty with adrenaline infiltration patients and group B consists of Millard labioplasty with lidocaine + adrenaline infiltration patients, each of group had 5 samples, quality scoring of the post surgery scar used Vancouver scar scale (VSS) on second month post surgery. All collected data tested with Mann Whitney statistical test. Result : Subjects in this study were 10 patients, based on gender patient of Millard labioplasty with adrenaline infiltration had same proportion with lodocaine + adrenaline infiltration those were female 3 patients (60.0%) andmale2 patients (40.0%), with average age were 9,60 +4,83 monthin adrenaline infiltrationand7,20 +4,38 monthin lidocaine + adrenaline infiltration. Study result shown 4 patients with mild scale, 1 patient with moderate scale in adrenaline infiltration and 1 mild scale, 4 moderate scales in lidocaine + adrenaline infiltration. With p= 0,072 (p>0,05) there were not significant differences between adrenaline infiltration and lidocaine + adrenaline infiltration in complete unilateral labiochisis post Millard labioplasty patients based on Vancouver scar scale. Conclusion : Result of study datas statistical analysis there were not significant quality differences of surgery wound scar between adrenaline infiltration and lidocaine + adrenaline infiltration in complete unilateral labiochisis post millard labioplasty patients based on vancouver scar scale. Keywords :Labioplasty Millard, lidocaine, adrenaline, scar, Vancouver scar scale (VSS) *Resident of General Surgery, Medicine Faculty of Sebelas Maret University/Dr. Moewardi Hospital Surakarta **Subdivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Surgery Department, Medicine Faculty Sebelas Maret University/Dr. Moewardi Hospital Surakarta ***Subdivision of Neurosurgery, Surgery Department, Medicine Faculty Sebelas Maret University/Dr. Moewardi Hospital Surakarta
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".